AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER: MRS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
The applicant has filed this original application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
“(a)Call for records of the case from the respondents and on perusal
(b)issue a direction to the second and third respondents to finalise the case relating to conversion of penalty of Lakkanna from termination of service to that of compulsory retirement as indicated by the second respondent vide letter Annexure A6:
Central Administrative Tribunal(c) Grant such other relief/s as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case including an order as to costs of this OA.”
Facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that she is the wife of Shri S. Lakkanna, who was working as Gardner in the 3rd Respondent office and who was removed from service. The services of late Shri S.Lakkanna was being utilized as casual labour in the Indian Institute of Horticulture Research, Bangalore and a certificate dated 26.11.1977 was issued by the Superintendent of the Institute showing that the applicant was working for the period from 01.12.1976 to 02.11.1977. Shri S.Lakkanna was appointed as temporary Gardner by the Pioneer Corps Training Centre, Bangalore in terms of the appointment offer dated 27.06.1981. The services of Shri S.Lakkanna was later made quasi-permanent with effect from 27.06.1984. He was transferred to 3rd Respondent office where he was working sincerely till about October, 2001. As Shri S.Lakkanna was not an educated person and was not keeping in good health, he was compelled to take leave and it appears that the 3rd Respondent issued a charge memorandum under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, which culminated in the order of removal dated 08.07.2003. Shri S.Lakkanna preferred an appeal on 12.01.2024 before the Appellate Authority seeking modification of penalty of removal as compulsory retirement and to provide him an opportunity to earn a small amount of pension to enable him and his wife to meet both ends during the hard days of their life. Pursuant to which, the 2nd Respondent instructed the 3rd Respondent to examine the case of the applicant and to give suitable reply on the said petition directly to the individual. In response, 3rd Respondent vide letter dated 19.04.2024 informed that the Disciplinary Authority cannot act as an Appellate Authority and requested the 2nd Respondent to re-examine the case. The matter was under correspondence and examination between the concerned departmental authorities. In the meantime, the employee-applicant’s husband died on 27.04.2024. The applicant also preferred an appeal dated 05.06.2024 to the 2nd Respondent with a request to consider the said appeal and modify the penalty of removal from service against the applicant’s husband to compulsory retirement, so that she would get family pension. Representation/appeal remains unconsidered. Hence this OA.
Learned Counsel Shri B.S.Venkatesh Kumar representing the applicant submitted that after receipt of letter dated 19.04.2024 from the 3rd Respondent, the 2nd Respondent sent a letter dated 10.05.2024 requesting the 3rd Respondent to send a brief of the case along with relevant documents of Shri S.Lakkanna regarding request of converting his termination from service to compulsory retirement. A copy of the said letter was endorsed to Shri S.Lakkanna, who had by that time passed away. The applicant addressed a letter dated 05.06.2024 to the 2nd Respondent bringing to the notice that her husband passed away on 27.04.2024 and her family is facing severe hardship and the case for converting the penalty from removal from service to compulsory retirement may kindly be expedited, but of no avail. The applicant being an illiterate and having three sons and none of them being educated, she and her family members are totally depending upon the positive action of the respondents in coming to their succour. Accordingly, seeks for the reliefs claimed.
Learned Counsel Shri Sayed S. Kazi representing the respondents submitted that late Shri S.Lakkanna, Gardner was a habitual absentee since his appointment. He was awarded reduction to a lower stage of pay by one stage for one year without cumulative effect and directed that he would not earn an increment of pay during the punishment period of one year. The said punishment was awarded for his unauthorised absence from 10.05.1999 to 17.01.2000, totalling to 137 days. Again late Shri S.Lakkanna absented himself from duty on various occasions from 07.03.2000 to 05.03.2002 totalling to 501 days. Accordingly, disciplinary action was initiated as per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 following due procedure and after obtaining advice from the Ministry of Law and Justice, which culminated in the penalty order of removal from service on 08.07.2003. The applicant’s husband did not file any appeal before the 2nd Respondent, who is the competent authority during the prescribed time. In response to the representation dated 17.04.2023 submitted by the applicant, the applicant was informed to appeal directly to the Appellate Authority vide letter dated 06.08.2023. The applicant submitted her representation through CPGRAMS on 08.07.2023 and her grievance was registered. However, the applicant having been advised to approach 2nd Respondent, she has been duly informed of the same. The applicant vide letter dated 05.06.2024 requested the 2nd Respondent that the case be considered for grant of pension and other benefits to support her family. Subsequently 3rd Respondent corresponded with 2nd Respondent seeking clarification to facilitate further action in the matter. When the matter was under correspondence and examination between the concerned departmental authorities, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, it is apparent that the applicant’s husband suffered the penalty order of removal from service dated 08.07.2003 pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings initiated under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The applicant’s husband filed an appeal dated 12.01.2024 before the Appellate Authority on 01.03.2024 seeking modification of the penalty of removal from service as compulsory retirement on humanitarian grounds and he died on 27.04.2024. Subsequently, the applicant also submitted an appeal/representation dated 05.06.2024 (Annexure A13) before the 2nd Respondent seeking for modification of penalty order of removal from service to compulsory retirement to enable her to get family pension and to sustain, but the same is pending. It was incumbent on the part of the Respondents No.2 and 3 to finalize the issue relating to the claim of conversion of penalty of termination of service of late Shri S.Lakkanna to that of compulsory retirement on humanitarian grounds within a reasonable time. No decision being taken on the said representation till date, we deem it appropriate to direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 to finalize the claim of the applicant for conversion of penalty of termination of service to that of compulsory retirement of late Shri S.Lakkanna, husband of the applicant, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly.
Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner in any event not later than 12 weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
OA stands disposed of in terms of above.
No order as to costs.